SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 1634

G.B.PATTANAIK, M.B.SHAH, S.N.PHUKAN
State of A. P. – Appellant
Versus
A. Sathyanarayana – Respondent


G.B.PATTANAIK, J.

(1) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned Designated Court, Karimnagar, returning the charge- sheet to be filed before an appropriate court by deleting Sections 5 and 6 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "TADA"). The learned Designated Judge being of the view that there was no prior approval of the District Superintendent (DSP) in writing as required under Section 20-A(1) of TADA and the order dated 6-1- 1994 issued by the Superintendent of Police tantamounts to post facto sanction of the registration of the case, he passed the impugned order.

(2) THE facts are undisputed that on 6-1-1994 the Sub Inspector of Police, Huzurabad seized certain explosive substances and then contacted the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar on VHP who is the appropriate authority for getting prior approval for registering a case under Section 20-A (1) of TADA. The said Superintendent of Police instructed the Sub Inspector to register the case and book the accused under Sections 4 and 5 of TADA in compliance of which the Sub Inspector did register the case. The said Superintende







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top